Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.817

onset_age

250

36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68)

0.730

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.108

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.153

-0.428, 0.172

0.403

time_point

1st

2nd

0.048

0.145

-0.236, 0.332

0.741

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.258

0.208

-0.149, 0.666

0.215

Pseudo R square

0.008

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.269

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.381

-0.826, 0.666

0.834

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.091

0.280

-0.641, 0.459

0.746

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.904

0.403

0.114, 1.69

0.026

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.507

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.717

-1.07, 1.74

0.640

time_point

1st

2nd

0.703

0.454

-0.187, 1.59

0.124

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.33

0.654

0.049, 2.61

0.043

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.187

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.264

-0.485, 0.549

0.904

time_point

1st

2nd

0.035

0.195

-0.348, 0.418

0.859

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.380

0.281

-0.170, 0.930

0.178

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.295

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.417

-0.473, 1.16

0.410

time_point

1st

2nd

0.324

0.284

-0.232, 0.880

0.255

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.558

0.408

-0.241, 1.36

0.173

Pseudo R square

0.016

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.371

-0.544, 0.912

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.345

0.240

-0.125, 0.816

0.152

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.455

0.345

-0.222, 1.13

0.189

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.216

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.306

-0.992, 0.208

0.201

time_point

1st

2nd

0.036

0.243

-0.440, 0.512

0.882

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.862

0.349

0.179, 1.55

0.014

Pseudo R square

0.016

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.870

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.231

-3.70, 1.12

0.296

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.42

0.761

-2.91, 0.072

0.064

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.062

1.095

-2.08, 2.21

0.955

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.411

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.582

-1.15, 1.13

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.420

0.393

-0.350, 1.19

0.286

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.205

0.565

-0.902, 1.31

0.717

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.516

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.730

-0.591, 2.27

0.251

time_point

1st

2nd

0.035

0.484

-0.914, 0.984

0.942

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.683

0.696

-0.681, 2.05

0.328

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.648

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.916

-0.427, 3.16

0.136

time_point

1st

2nd

1.00

0.574

-0.123, 2.13

0.083

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.248

0.825

-1.37, 1.87

0.764

Pseudo R square

0.016

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.333

10.0, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.471

-0.571, 1.28

0.456

time_point

1st

2nd

0.409

0.273

-0.126, 0.945

0.136

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.073

0.393

-0.844, 0.698

0.853

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.548

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.775

-1.52, 1.52

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.780

0.483

-0.167, 1.73

0.108

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.087

0.695

-1.28, 1.45

0.900

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.632

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.893

-1.43, 2.07

0.720

time_point

1st

2nd

1.03

0.559

-0.066, 2.12

0.067

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.271

0.803

-1.85, 1.30

0.736

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.392

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.554

-0.326, 1.85

0.171

time_point

1st

2nd

0.809

0.386

0.052, 1.57

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.689

0.555

-0.399, 1.78

0.216

Pseudo R square

0.030

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.253

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.357

0.044, 1.44

0.038

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.179

0.246

-0.661, 0.303

0.467

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.487

0.353

-0.205, 1.18

0.170

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.286

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.405

-0.401, 1.19

0.334

time_point

1st

2nd

0.339

0.271

-0.191, 0.869

0.212

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.347

0.389

-0.416, 1.11

0.374

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.296

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.419

-0.125, 1.52

0.098

time_point

1st

2nd

0.290

0.259

-0.216, 0.797

0.263

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.224

0.372

-0.505, 0.953

0.548

Pseudo R square

0.017

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.541

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.765

-0.412, 2.59

0.156

time_point

1st

2nd

0.645

0.455

-0.246, 1.54

0.158

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.552

0.654

-0.730, 1.83

0.400

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.823

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.164

-3.50, 1.06

0.297

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.575

0.706

-1.96, 0.810

0.417

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.15

1.016

-4.14, -0.162

0.035

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.450

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.636

-0.238, 2.25

0.114

time_point

1st

2nd

0.381

0.370

-0.345, 1.11

0.305

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.469

0.533

-0.576, 1.51

0.380

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.364

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.515

-0.001, 2.02

0.051

time_point

1st

2nd

0.658

0.330

0.011, 1.30

0.048

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.161

0.474

-0.769, 1.09

0.735

Pseudo R square

0.024

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.776

27.6, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.097

-0.134, 4.17

0.067

time_point

1st

2nd

1.05

0.640

-0.209, 2.30

0.104

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.612

0.921

-1.19, 2.42

0.507

Pseudo R square

0.022

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.140

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.199

-0.461, 0.317

0.717

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.159

0.174

-0.500, 0.182

0.362

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.148

0.250

-0.342, 0.637

0.556

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.307

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.435

-0.132, 1.57

0.099

time_point

1st

2nd

0.861

0.333

0.209, 1.51

0.010

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.727

0.478

-1.66, 0.210

0.130

Pseudo R square

0.012

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.380

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.538

-0.590, 1.52

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

0.758

0.378

0.017, 1.50

0.047

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.108

0.543

-0.957, 1.17

0.842

Pseudo R square

0.012

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.622

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.880

-0.540, 2.91

0.179

time_point

1st

2nd

1.62

0.631

0.380, 2.86

0.011

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.619

0.907

-2.40, 1.16

0.496

Pseudo R square

0.013

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.405

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.572

-0.594, 1.65

0.357

time_point

1st

2nd

0.842

0.369

0.119, 1.56

0.024

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.070

0.530

-1.11, 0.970

0.895

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.228

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.323

-0.641, 0.625

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.170

0.271

-0.361, 0.701

0.531

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.644

0.389

-0.119, 1.41

0.100

Pseudo R square

0.014

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.276

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.390

-0.852, 0.676

0.822

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.420

0.308

-1.02, 0.183

0.174

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.636

0.442

-1.50, 0.230

0.152

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.326

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.461

-0.679, 1.13

0.627

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.451

0.305

-1.05, 0.146

0.141

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.714

0.438

-1.57, 0.145

0.105

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.333

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.471

-1.00, 0.843

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.729

0.308

-1.33, -0.126

0.019

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.119

0.443

-0.987, 0.749

0.789

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.335

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.473

-0.519, 1.34

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.539

0.307

-1.14, 0.063

0.081

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.525

0.441

-1.39, 0.339

0.235

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.936

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.323

-2.04, 3.15

0.677

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.70

0.786

-3.24, -0.156

0.032

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.31

1.131

-3.53, 0.904

0.247

Pseudo R square

0.013

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(399) = 29.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(399) = -0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.33], t(399) = 0.33, p = 0.741; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.67], t(399) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(399) = 66.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(399) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.46], t(399) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.11, 1.69], t(399) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.04, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.69, 30.68], t(399) = 58.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.74], t(399) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.59], t(399) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [0.05, 2.61], t(399) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [8.63e-03, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(399) = 62.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.55], t(399) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.42], t(399) = 0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.93], t(399) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.76], t(399) = 58.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.16], t(399) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.88], t(399) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.36], t(399) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(399) = 50.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(399) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.82], t(399) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.13], t(399) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.38], t(399) = 45.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.21], t(399) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.51], t(399) = 0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.18, 1.55], t(399) = 2.47, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.07, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.79, 33.20], t(399) = 36.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.12], t(399) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.91, 0.07], t(399) = -1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, 7.47e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.21], t(399) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 6.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(399) = 53.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.13], t(399) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.19], t(399) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.31], t(399) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.52], t(399) = 47.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(399) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.98], t(399) = 0.07, p = 0.942; Std. beta = 6.07e-03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.05], t(399) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.39, 20.93], t(399) = 30.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.43, 3.16], t(399) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.13], t(399) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.37, 1.87], t(399) = 0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [10.00, 11.30], t(399) = 31.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(399) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.95], t(399) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.70], t(399) = -0.19, p = 0.853; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.05, 16.20], t(399) = 27.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.97e-13, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.52], t(399) = 3.83e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.89e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.73], t(399) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.45], t(399) = 0.13, p = 0.900; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.31, 22.79], t(399) = 34.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(399) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.12], t(399) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-9.43e-03, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.30], t(399) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(399) = 41.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.85], t(399) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.05, 1.57], t(399) = 2.09, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.01, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.78], t(399) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.67, 13.66], t(399) = 52.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.04, 1.44], t(399) = 2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30], t(399) = -0.73, p = 0.466; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.18], t(399) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(399) = 58.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.19], t(399) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.87], t(399) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.11], t(399) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(399) = 41.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.52], t(399) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.80], t(399) = 1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.95], t(399) = 0.60, p = 0.547; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(399) = 53.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.59], t(399) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.54], t(399) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.83], t(399) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(399) = 33.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.50, 1.06], t(399) = -1.05, p = 0.296; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.81], t(399) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.15, 95% CI [-4.14, -0.16], t(399) = -2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.44, -0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(399) = 30.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.25], t(399) = 1.59, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.11], t(399) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(399) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.61, 16.04], t(399) = 42.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.28e-03, 2.02], t(399) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-3.10e-04, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [0.01, 1.30], t(399) = 1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [2.70e-03, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.09], t(399) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.65, 30.69], t(399) = 37.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 4.17], t(399) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.30], t(399) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.42], t(399) = 0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(399) = 91.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(399) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.18], t(399) = -0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.64], t(399) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(399) = 46.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.57], t(399) = 1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.21, 1.51], t(399) = 2.59, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.06, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.21], t(399) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.90], t(399) = 34.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.52], t(399) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.02, 1.50], t(399) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [3.90e-03, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.17], t(399) = 0.20, p = 0.842; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.29, 28.73], t(399) = 44.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.91], t(399) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.62, 95% CI [0.38, 2.86], t(399) = 2.56, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.05, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.40, 1.16], t(399) = -0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(399) = 46.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(399) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.12, 1.56], t(399) = 2.28, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.03, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.97], t(399) = -0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.91, 14.81], t(399) = 62.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.62], t(399) = -0.02, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.13e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.70], t(399) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.41], t(399) = 1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(399) = 42.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(399) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.18], t(399) = -1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.23], t(399) = -1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(399) = 31.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.13], t(399) = 0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.15], t(399) = -1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.14], t(399) = -1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(399) = 30.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(399) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.33, -0.13], t(399) = -2.37, p = 0.018; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.36, -0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.75], t(399) = -0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(399) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(399) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.06], t(399) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.34], t(399) = -1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(399) = 31.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.15], t(399) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-3.24, -0.16], t(399) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.53, 0.90], t(399) = -1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,289.763

1,301.775

-641.881

1,283.763

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,291.381

1,315.404

-639.690

1,279.381

4.382

3

0.223

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,974.128

1,986.140

-984.064

1,968.128

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,971.955

1,995.978

-979.977

1,959.955

8.173

3

0.043

ras_confidence

null

3

2,459.946

2,471.957

-1,226.973

2,453.946

ras_confidence

random

6

2,444.759

2,468.782

-1,216.379

2,432.759

21.187

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,675.290

1,687.302

-834.645

1,669.290

ras_willingness

random

6

1,676.618

1,700.642

-832.309

1,664.618

4.672

3

0.197

ras_goal

null

3

2,030.236

2,042.247

-1,012.118

2,024.236

ras_goal

random

6

2,024.366

2,048.389

-1,006.183

2,012.366

11.870

3

0.008

ras_reliance

null

3

1,924.085

1,936.097

-959.043

1,918.085

ras_reliance

random

6

1,917.036

1,941.060

-952.518

1,905.036

13.049

3

0.005

ras_domination

null

3

1,820.522

1,832.534

-907.261

1,814.522

ras_domination

random

6

1,813.731

1,837.755

-900.866

1,801.731

12.791

3

0.005

symptom

null

3

2,877.101

2,889.112

-1,435.550

2,871.101

symptom

random

6

2,875.564

2,899.588

-1,431.782

2,863.564

7.536

3

0.057

slof_work

null

3

2,290.083

2,302.095

-1,142.042

2,284.083

slof_work

random

6

2,292.540

2,316.564

-1,140.270

2,280.540

3.543

3

0.315

slof_relationship

null

3

2,470.091

2,482.102

-1,232.045

2,464.091

slof_relationship

random

6

2,471.688

2,495.711

-1,229.844

2,459.688

4.403

3

0.221

satisfaction

null

3

2,643.551

2,655.562

-1,318.775

2,637.551

satisfaction

random

6

2,639.513

2,663.536

-1,313.756

2,627.513

10.038

3

0.018

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,077.703

2,089.714

-1,035.851

2,071.703

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,079.558

2,103.581

-1,033.779

2,067.558

4.145

3

0.246

mhc_social

null

3

2,502.414

2,514.426

-1,248.207

2,496.414

mhc_social

random

6

2,502.877

2,526.900

-1,245.438

2,490.877

5.537

3

0.136

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,617.952

2,629.964

-1,305.976

2,611.952

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,618.836

2,642.859

-1,303.418

2,606.836

5.116

3

0.164

resilisnce

null

3

2,276.787

2,288.799

-1,135.394

2,270.787

resilisnce

random

6

2,261.690

2,285.714

-1,124.845

2,249.690

21.097

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,905.797

1,917.808

-949.898

1,899.797

social_provision

random

6

1,902.696

1,926.719

-945.348

1,890.696

9.101

3

0.028

els_value_living

null

3

1,999.097

2,011.108

-996.548

1,993.097

els_value_living

random

6

1,995.909

2,019.933

-991.955

1,983.909

9.187

3

0.027

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,004.216

2,016.227

-999.108

1,998.216

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,001.672

2,025.696

-994.836

1,989.672

8.543

3

0.036

els

null

3

2,484.519

2,496.531

-1,239.260

2,478.519

els

random

6

2,479.267

2,503.291

-1,233.634

2,467.267

11.252

3

0.010

social_connect

null

3

2,835.828

2,847.839

-1,414.914

2,829.828

social_connect

random

6

2,824.726

2,848.750

-1,406.363

2,812.726

17.101

3

0.001

shs_agency

null

3

2,327.132

2,339.144

-1,160.566

2,321.132

shs_agency

random

6

2,323.708

2,347.732

-1,155.854

2,311.708

9.424

3

0.024

shs_pathway

null

3

2,187.472

2,199.484

-1,090.736

2,181.472

shs_pathway

random

6

2,179.360

2,203.383

-1,083.680

2,167.360

14.112

3

0.003

shs

null

3

2,772.890

2,784.902

-1,383.445

2,766.890

shs

random

6

2,765.821

2,789.844

-1,376.910

2,753.821

13.069

3

0.004

esteem

null

3

1,481.568

1,493.580

-737.784

1,475.568

esteem

random

6

1,486.712

1,510.735

-737.356

1,474.712

0.856

3

0.836

mlq_search

null

3

2,091.560

2,103.572

-1,042.780

2,085.560

mlq_search

random

6

2,089.428

2,113.451

-1,038.714

2,077.428

8.132

3

0.043

mlq_presence

null

3

2,243.035

2,255.047

-1,118.518

2,237.035

mlq_presence

random

6

2,239.378

2,263.401

-1,113.689

2,227.378

9.657

3

0.022

mlq

null

3

2,647.775

2,659.787

-1,320.888

2,641.775

mlq

random

6

2,643.682

2,667.705

-1,315.841

2,631.682

10.093

3

0.018

empower

null

3

2,270.367

2,282.379

-1,132.184

2,264.367

empower

random

6

2,266.414

2,290.438

-1,127.207

2,254.414

9.953

3

0.019

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,873.832

1,885.844

-933.916

1,867.832

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,870.561

1,894.585

-929.281

1,858.561

9.270

3

0.026

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,015.686

2,027.698

-1,004.843

2,009.686

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,008.381

2,032.405

-998.191

1,996.381

13.305

3

0.004

sss_affective

null

3

2,107.473

2,119.484

-1,050.736

2,101.473

sss_affective

random

6

2,097.914

2,121.937

-1,042.957

2,085.914

15.559

3

0.001

sss_behavior

null

3

2,119.420

2,131.431

-1,056.710

2,113.420

sss_behavior

random

6

2,112.857

2,136.880

-1,050.429

2,100.857

12.563

3

0.006

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,122.547

2,134.558

-1,058.273

2,116.547

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,114.076

2,138.099

-1,051.038

2,102.076

14.471

3

0.002

sss

null

3

2,934.849

2,946.861

-1,464.425

2,928.849

sss

random

6

2,922.935

2,946.958

-1,455.468

2,910.935

17.914

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.21

125

3.07 ± 1.21

0.403

0.131

recovery_stage_a

2nd

80

3.25 ± 1.19

-0.049

75

3.38 ± 1.19

-0.314

0.494

-0.134

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.01

125

17.80 ± 3.01

0.834

0.044

recovery_stage_b

2nd

80

17.79 ± 2.79

0.049

75

18.61 ± 2.77

-0.443

0.066

-0.449

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.67

125

30.02 ± 5.67

0.640

-0.114

ras_confidence

2nd

80

30.39 ± 5.10

-0.239

75

32.06 ± 5.05

-0.690

0.042

-0.565

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.09

125

11.66 ± 2.09

0.904

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

80

11.66 ± 1.94

-0.027

75

12.07 ± 1.92

-0.324

0.185

-0.322

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.29

125

17.53 ± 3.29

0.410

-0.186

ras_goal

2nd

80

17.51 ± 3.00

-0.176

75

18.41 ± 2.98

-0.478

0.061

-0.488

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.118

ras_reliance

2nd

80

13.49 ± 2.65

-0.221

75

14.13 ± 2.62

-0.513

0.132

-0.410

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.42

125

9.56 ± 2.42

0.201

0.245

ras_domination

2nd

80

9.99 ± 2.28

-0.022

75

10.46 ± 2.27

-0.562

0.199

-0.294

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.73

125

30.21 ± 9.73

0.296

0.261

symptom

2nd

80

30.08 ± 8.71

0.288

75

28.85 ± 8.61

0.276

0.379

0.249

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.60

125

22.06 ± 4.60

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

80

22.48 ± 4.19

-0.164

75

22.68 ± 4.15

-0.245

0.769

-0.077

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.77

125

25.34 ± 5.77

0.251

-0.267

slof_relationship

2nd

80

24.54 ± 5.24

-0.011

75

26.06 ± 5.19

-0.228

0.070

-0.484

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.24

125

21.03 ± 7.24

0.136

-0.368

satisfaction

2nd

80

20.67 ± 6.50

-0.269

75

22.28 ± 6.43

-0.336

0.120

-0.435

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.72

125

11.00 ± 3.72

0.456

-0.199

mhc_emotional

2nd

80

11.06 ± 3.30

-0.232

75

11.34 ± 3.25

-0.191

0.597

-0.158

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.12

125

15.13 ± 6.12

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

80

15.91 ± 5.49

-0.249

75

16.00 ± 5.43

-0.277

0.921

-0.028

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.06

125

21.87 ± 7.06

0.720

-0.088

mhc_psychological

2nd

80

22.58 ± 6.34

-0.284

75

22.63 ± 6.27

-0.209

0.962

-0.013

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.38

125

16.94 ± 4.38

0.171

-0.302

resilisnce

2nd

80

16.98 ± 4.02

-0.321

75

18.43 ± 3.98

-0.595

0.025

-0.575

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.83

125

13.91 ± 2.83

0.038

-0.465

social_provision

2nd

80

12.99 ± 2.58

0.112

75

14.22 ± 2.56

-0.193

0.003

-0.769

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.20

125

17.15 ± 3.20

0.334

-0.223

els_value_living

2nd

80

17.10 ± 2.91

-0.193

75

17.84 ± 2.88

-0.390

0.113

-0.420

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.31

125

13.10 ± 3.31

0.098

-0.416

els_life_fulfill

2nd

80

12.70 ± 2.96

-0.173

75

13.62 ± 2.93

-0.307

0.053

-0.549

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.05

125

30.26 ± 6.05

0.156

-0.370

els

2nd

80

29.81 ± 5.38

-0.219

75

31.45 ± 5.31

-0.407

0.057

-0.558

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.20

125

26.66 ± 9.20

0.297

0.266

social_connect

2nd

80

27.31 ± 8.21

0.126

75

23.94 ± 8.11

0.597

0.011

0.737

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 5.03

125

14.85 ± 5.03

0.114

-0.421

shs_agency

2nd

80

14.22 ± 4.45

-0.159

75

15.70 ± 4.40

-0.355

0.039

-0.617

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.07

125

16.34 ± 4.07

0.051

-0.471

shs_pathway

2nd

80

15.99 ± 3.67

-0.307

75

17.15 ± 3.63

-0.382

0.047

-0.546

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.67

125

31.18 ± 8.67

0.067

-0.488

shs

2nd

80

30.21 ± 7.69

-0.253

75

32.84 ± 7.59

-0.401

0.033

-0.636

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.57

125

12.73 ± 1.57

0.717

0.062

esteem

2nd

80

12.64 ± 1.51

0.137

75

12.72 ± 1.51

0.010

0.756

-0.065

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.44

125

15.08 ± 3.44

0.099

-0.329

mlq_search

2nd

80

15.22 ± 3.21

-0.394

75

15.21 ± 3.20

-0.061

0.989

0.003

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.25

125

13.62 ± 4.25

0.389

-0.188

mlq_presence

2nd

80

13.91 ± 3.90

-0.307

75

14.48 ± 3.87

-0.351

0.360

-0.232

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.95

125

28.70 ± 6.95

0.179

-0.287

mlq

2nd

80

29.13 ± 6.41

-0.392

75

29.70 ± 6.37

-0.242

0.582

-0.137

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.52

125

19.38 ± 4.52

0.357

-0.221

empower

2nd

80

19.69 ± 4.08

-0.352

75

20.15 ± 4.04

-0.323

0.483

-0.191

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.55

125

14.35 ± 2.55

0.980

0.004

ismi_resistance

2nd

80

14.53 ± 2.44

-0.095

75

15.17 ± 2.43

-0.453

0.105

-0.354

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.08

125

11.70 ± 3.08

0.822

0.043

ismi_discrimation

2nd

80

11.37 ± 2.90

0.207

75

10.65 ± 2.89

0.521

0.120

0.357

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.64

125

10.62 ± 3.64

0.627

-0.113

sss_affective

2nd

80

9.95 ± 3.30

0.228

75

9.46 ± 3.27

0.588

0.354

0.247

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.72

125

10.10 ± 3.72

0.865

0.040

sss_behavior

2nd

80

9.45 ± 3.37

0.364

75

9.25 ± 3.34

0.424

0.713

0.099

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.389

-0.205

sss_cognitive

2nd

80

8.17 ± 3.38

0.270

75

8.06 ± 3.35

0.534

0.828

0.059

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.46

125

29.84 ± 10.46

0.677

-0.109

sss

2nd

80

27.59 ± 9.30

0.334

75

26.83 ± 9.18

0.592

0.609

0.150

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(367.63) = -0.84, p = 0.403, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(400.68) = 0.68, p = 0.494, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.50)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(314.34) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(392.12) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.70)

ras_confidence

1st

t(294.46) = 0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.75)

2st

t(377.78) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.27)

ras_willingness

1st

t(314.99) = 0.12, p = 0.904, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.55)

2st

t(392.40) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.02)

ras_goal

1st

t(302.97) = 0.83, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.16)

2st

t(385.43) = 1.88, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.85)

ras_reliance

1st

t(296.77) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.91)

2st

t(380.14) = 1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.47)

ras_domination

1st

t(327.07) = -1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(396.46) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.19)

symptom

1st

t(291.97) = -1.05, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.71 to 1.13)

2st

t(374.97) = -0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.96 to 1.51)

slof_work

1st

t(301.92) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.14)

2st

t(384.64) = 0.29, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.51)

slof_relationship

1st

t(299.66) = 1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.28)

2st

t(382.79) = 1.82, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.17)

satisfaction

1st

t(293.30) = 1.49, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.17)

2st

t(376.51) = 1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.66)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(285.95) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(366.89) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.31)

mhc_social

1st

t(292.88) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.52)

2st

t(376.03) = 0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.81)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(293.10) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.08)

2st

t(376.28) = 0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.94 to 2.04)

resilisnce

1st

t(306.14) = 1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)

2st

t(387.64) = 2.25, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.71)

social_provision

1st

t(304.29) = 2.08, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.45)

2st

t(386.39) = 2.98, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.42 to 2.04)

els_value_living

1st

t(300.67) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(383.64) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.65)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(291.78) = 1.66, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.52)

2st

t(374.76) = 1.94, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.85)

els

1st

t(288.06) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.59)

2st

t(369.95) = 1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.05 to 3.33)

social_connect

1st

t(290.08) = -1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.51 to 1.07)

2st

t(372.65) = -2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-5.95 to -0.79)

shs_agency

1st

t(286.27) = 1.59, p = 0.114, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.26)

2st

t(367.37) = 2.08, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.88)

shs_pathway

1st

t(295.69) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.02)

2st

t(379.06) = 1.99, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.02 to 2.32)

shs

1st

t(286.46) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.14 to 4.17)

2st

t(367.65) = 2.14, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.22 to 5.04)

esteem

1st

t(348.49) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(399.74) = 0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.55)

mlq_search

1st

t(320.68) = 1.66, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(394.60) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.01)

mlq_presence

1st

t(307.40) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)

2st

t(388.44) = 0.92, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.80)

mlq

1st

t(310.32) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.91)

2st

t(390.13) = 0.55, p = 0.582, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.58)

empower

1st

t(296.34) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)

2st

t(379.72) = 0.70, p = 0.483, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.74)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(338.59) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.63)

2st

t(398.65) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.40)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(326.21) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)

2st

t(396.24) = -1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.19)

sss_affective

1st

t(299.40) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(382.56) = -0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.55)

sss_behavior

1st

t(297.98) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(381.29) = -0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.26 to 0.86)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(297.01) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(380.37) = -0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.94)

sss

1st

t(288.08) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.16)

2st

t(369.97) = -0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.68 to 2.16)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(203.77) = 2.05, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.01 to 0.60)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(179.81) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.39)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(171.77) = 4.32, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (1.10 to 2.96)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(180.07) = 2.05, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.02 to 0.81)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(175.19) = 3.01, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.30 to 1.46)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(172.70) = 3.22, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.29)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(185.08) = 3.58, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.39)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(170.77) = -1.72, p = 0.173, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.91 to 0.20)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(174.77) = 1.54, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.43)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(173.86) = 1.43, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.71)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(171.30) = 2.10, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.42)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(168.36) = 1.19, p = 0.472, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.89)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(171.13) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.85)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(171.22) = 1.31, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.90)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(176.47) = 3.75, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.71 to 2.29)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(175.72) = 1.21, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.81)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(174.27) = 2.45, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(170.70) = 1.92, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.04)

els

1st vs 2st

t(169.21) = 2.54, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.13)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(170.02) = -3.73, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.17 to -1.28)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(168.49) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.61)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(172.26) = 2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.49)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(168.57) = 2.50, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.97)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(194.42) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.34)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(182.41) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(176.98) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.64)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(178.17) = 1.53, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.29)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(172.52) = 2.02, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.53)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(190.00) = 2.91, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.37)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(184.72) = -3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.68 to -0.43)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(173.76) = -3.70, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-1.79 to -0.54)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(173.18) = -2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.48 to -0.22)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(172.79) = -3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.69 to -0.44)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(169.21) = -3.70, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.62 to -1.40)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(196.74) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.33)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(176.24) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.46)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(169.31) = 1.55, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.60)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(176.46) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.42)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(172.26) = 1.14, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.88)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(170.11) = 1.44, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.82)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(180.76) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.52)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(168.45) = -1.86, p = 0.128, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.92 to 0.08)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(171.90) = 1.07, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.20)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(171.11) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.99)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(168.91) = 1.74, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.13)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(166.36) = 1.50, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.95)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(168.76) = 1.61, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.74)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(168.84) = 1.84, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.13)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(173.37) = 2.09, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.57)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(172.72) = -0.73, p = 0.936, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.31)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(171.47) = 1.25, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.87)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(168.38) = 1.12, p = 0.527, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.80)

els

1st vs 2st

t(167.10) = 1.42, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.54)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(167.80) = -0.81, p = 0.835, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.82)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(166.48) = 1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.11)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(169.74) = 1.99, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.31)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(166.54) = 1.63, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.31)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(188.76) = -0.91, p = 0.725, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.18)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(178.48) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.52)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(173.80) = 2.00, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.50)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(174.83) = 2.56, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.37 to 2.87)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(169.96) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.57)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(184.99) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.71)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(180.45) = -1.36, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.19)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(171.02) = -1.48, p = 0.282, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.15)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(170.53) = -2.37, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.34 to -0.12)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(170.19) = -1.75, p = 0.162, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(167.10) = -2.16, p = 0.065, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.25 to -0.14)

Plot

Clinical significance